I actually think this has some potential to be a very serious film and not in any way shape or form ruin the classic. Listen to Franco's interview on WTF recently, the man is a very serious actor with some real directing and acting chops.

FTFA: In the meantime, we should thank our lucky stars that the movie isn't just several hours of a tweed-clad James Franco sitting on a stool and reading the book aloud-because that was totally a possibility.

Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness:FTFA: In the meantime, we should thank our lucky stars that the movie isn't just several hours of a tweed-clad James Franco sitting on a stool and reading the book aloud-because that was totally a possibility.

I liked Franco only because he doesn't seem to take himself or his craft that seriously (hence a mix of goofy roles and serious ones), yet he apparently got a bit butthurt when Marc Maron burned him with a fairly light yet direct jab on a podcast so I really don't what to think anymore of the whole "he doesn't take himself too seriously" part. So, in conclusion, I like dogs.

Aaaaaaaaand this. The only redeeming quality of that awful book, is that this single line/chapter sticks in my mind so easily, which greatly simplifies some of my argument for why it is the worst book ever. That line...IS AN ENTIRE CHAPTER! Oooooo, don't forget to bevel the edges of the coffin just right too...WTFaulkner...

simplicimus:palelizard: By definition, it is impossible to ruin a Faulkner novel, as they were ruined when written.

Nailed it.

10pts. Expect lots of troll chow.

Faulkner isn't for everyone. It takes a level of involvement that is often beyond the ability of most readers, who would be better off sticking with the classics, like Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys mysteries. But if you have the mental capacity to understand not only the words on the page but the time and place that is being described, Faulkner can be amazingly rewarding. I'm not knocking the written word as pure entertainment (I have a library with thousands of pulp sci-fi paperbacks, some of the worst- and most entertaining- writing known to mankind). I'm just saying that entertainment is only one aspect of the written word.

Reading Faulkner requires an investment of your time, attention, research, and most of all your, I don't know what to call it- soul? Compassion? Will to understand? Whatever- you get out of it what you put into it. I wouldn't recommend a steady diet of Faulkner (or any other deep literature), but for those times when you are willing to put in the work, I guarantee you it will repay your efforts a hundredfold.

tillerman35:simplicimus: palelizard: By definition, it is impossible to ruin a Faulkner novel, as they were ruined when written.

Nailed it.

10pts. Expect lots of troll chow.

Faulkner isn't for everyone. It takes a level of involvement that is often beyond the ability of most readers, who would be better off sticking with the classics, like Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys mysteries. But if you have the mental capacity to understand not only the words on the page but the time and place that is being described, Faulkner can be amazingly rewarding. I'm not knocking the written word as pure entertainment (I have a library with thousands of pulp sci-fi paperbacks, some of the worst- and most entertaining- writing known to mankind). I'm just saying that entertainment is only one aspect of the written word.

Reading Faulkner requires an investment of your time, attention, research, and most of all your, I don't know what to call it- soul? Compassion? Will to understand? Whatever- you get out of it what you put into it. I wouldn't recommend a steady diet of Faulkner (or any other deep literature), but for those times when you are willing to put in the work, I guarantee you it will repay your efforts a hundredfold.

I appreciate many genres of literature. Few writers lay down the challenge, "I dare you to read this". Maybe James Joyce.

tillerman35:simplicimus: palelizard: By definition, it is impossible to ruin a Faulkner novel, as they were ruined when written.

Nailed it.

10pts. Expect lots of troll chow.

Faulkner isn't for everyone. It takes a level of involvement that is often beyond the ability of most readers, who would be better off sticking with the classics, like Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys mysteries. But if you have the mental capacity to understand not only the words on the page but the time and place that is being described, Faulkner can be amazingly rewarding. I'm not knocking the written word as pure entertainment (I have a library with thousands of pulp sci-fi paperbacks, some of the worst- and most entertaining- writing known to mankind). I'm just saying that entertainment is only one aspect of the written word.

Reading Faulkner requires an investment of your time, attention, research, and most of all your, I don't know what to call it- soul? Compassion? Will to understand? Whatever- you get out of it what you put into it. I wouldn't recommend a steady diet of Faulkner (or any other deep literature), but for those times when you are willing to put in the work, I guarantee you it will repay your efforts a hundredfold.

Fark off. Some people can dislike an author just because they don't like his writing.

To be honest, I don't really get why people hate Franco. I haven't seen all his movies, but the ones I can think of haven't been horrible, and I can't even think of them as being worse off for his presence.

Also McBride is probably like John C. Reilly, he can be serious or play the part of the ass clown. Playing an ass clown is probably fun.

James Franco is supposedly trying to cobble together a Blood Meridian movie. If done well, that might be the greatest movie ever made. Just get the guy from The Proposition to direct. And don't be afraid to cast a black guy as Judge Holden.

Cagey B:Pr1nc3ss: Fark off. Some people can dislike an author just because they don't like his writing

They certainly can. It's when you start saying things like "this author sucks at authoring" simply because you don't like them that you start sounding like a semi-literate cretin.

Yep. I have no idea why so many people confuse something being good (or having merit) with what they personally do or don't like. There are probably more great works that I don't like than that I do, and a whole lot of things I like that I don't consider very good at all.

"William Faulkner is a bad writer" - F*ckwitted declaration of ignorance. Dismissed by pretty much anyone familiar with American literature, save some guy at Bumfark Community College who considers poems composed by Koko the Gorilla the highest expression of written narrative.

tillerman35:simplicimus: palelizard: By definition, it is impossible to ruin a Faulkner novel, as they were ruined when written.

Nailed it.

10pts. Expect lots of troll chow.

Faulkner isn't for everyone. It takes a level of involvement that is often beyond the ability of most readers, who would be better off sticking with the classics, like Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys mysteries. But if you have the mental capacity to understand not only the words on the page but the time and place that is being described, Faulkner can be amazingly rewarding. I'm not knocking the written word as pure entertainment (I have a library with thousands of pulp sci-fi paperbacks, some of the worst- and most entertaining- writing known to mankind). I'm just saying that entertainment is only one aspect of the written word.

Reading Faulkner requires an investment of your time, attention, research, and most of all your, I don't know what to call it- soul? Compassion? Will to understand? Whatever- you get out of it what you put into it. I wouldn't recommend a steady diet of Faulkner (or any other deep literature), but for those times when you are willing to put in the work, I guarantee you it will repay your efforts a hundredfold.

When I was in HS I absolutely loathed Faulkner. A few years later I picked up A Light in August (can't remember why) and it devastated and amazed me. He is such a fierce, honest, uncompromising writer. Once you understand what he is doing and why, it's impossible to stop searching him out.